Were the incidents of June 26 intended as a grotesque commemoration
of the first anniversary of IS, which self-proclaimed itself on June 29,
2014? They were certainly in the same
order of bloodthirsty barbarity as the succession of inhumane and philistine IS
acts that have dominated the world’s media, and shocked and sickened decent people
everywhere, for the past twelve months.

What is IS, and what does it seek? IS
claims to be re-establishing the caliphate of the early days of Islam, and declares
its intention first to entrench its rule over Iraq and Syria, then to extend
its sway over the Middle East as a whole, and finally to impose its version of
sharia law on the entire world. Mainstream
Muslim opinion rejects IS’s pretension to represent a worldwide caliphate, and
refuses to acknowledge its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, as caliph over all
Muslims. It
refutes his assertion that "the legality of all emirates, groups, states,
and organisations, becomes null by the expansion of the caliphate's authority
and arrival of its troops to their areas". There is a
general consensus in the Muslim world, Sunni and Shia constituents alike, that Baghdadi’s
pretensions are absurd, and that the ruthless and vicious savagery of IS’s
terrorist activities against communities and individuals represents a perversion
of Islam.

So far the world’s response to the global jihad waged, sponsored
and fed by IS, has been woefully deficient.
Politically hampered by the unhappy results of its incursions into
Afghanistan and Iraq, the West has taken half-hearted action against IS in Iraq
and Syria under the less-than-inspiring banner of “No boots on the
ground”. Personnel sent in
to train local forces, allied to air support for local military offensives, have produced little by way of positive results, and IS continues to go from
strength to strength.

But IS’s bloodthirsty
onslaught on the civilized world - its strategy in its preposterous struggle to
dominate the globe - simply cannot be allowed to continue, and at last
influential voices in the West are beginning to proclaim the obvious: Islamic State can and must be defeated
militarily. Only when it is totally
vanquished, and the areas in Iraq and Syria that it has occupied are liberated,
will the baleful influence that IS exercises over so many vulnerable young Muslim people be exorcised.
And of course, if a West-led coalition can muster the will, it certainly possesses
the military might to overwhelm, crush and annihilate IS.

Israel’s former
prime minister, Ehud Barak, may be a tad optimistic in asserting that it could be defeated in a
matter of days, but that it could be defeated reasonably speedily is certain.

In the US a
pair of Senators – one Democrat, the other Republican – have just launched an attempt to force Congress to provide the administration with specific
authority for the fight. Democrat Timothy Kaine and Republican Jeff Flake have
introduced a Bill that would authorize military force for three years against
Islamic State and “associated forces”. President
Obama appears to favour the initiative.

In the UK, Lord Dannatt, former head of Britain’s armed forces, has called for
British troops to be deployed on the ground to fight IS in Iraq and Syria.

Even the
Vatican, appalled by the beheading by IS of 21 Coptic Christians in Libya, has declared
that the jihadists must be stopped. Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the Vatican's top diplomat at the UN in Geneva, said: "What's
needed is a co-ordinated and well-thought-out coalition to do everything
possible to achieve a political settlement without violence. But if that's not possible, then the use of
force will be necessary."

How right he is – though the idea of reaching “a political settlement without violence” with
IS is clearly a pipe dream. But “a
co-ordinated and well-thought-out coalition”, especially if led by the US, certainly
would be a desirable basis for a massive onslaught against the forces of IS.

The template for
such a strategy has thoughtfully been supplied to the world by the proactive
new monarch of Saudi Arabia, King Salman.
Faced by the militant Iranian-backed rebel organization, the Houthis,
rampaging through Yemen – his country’s backyard
– he put aside any past disagreements with Muslim states
and quickly assembled a coalition of no less than twelve of them, not only in the Middle East but including
Malaysia and Senegal. He then led an air-backed
military strike against the rebels, forcing them very quickly to a truce.

Most of the
countries in Salman’s coalition would be prepared to join a new US-led alliance
dedicated to destroying IS in Iraq and Syria, for most are as opposed to IS as
to Iran. Both the Islamic State and the Islamic Republic have pretensions to
sweep away existing “emirates, groups, states, and organisations,” (in the words
of IS’s founding charter), to be replaced by their own version of Islam. No Muslim nation would wish to see self-proclaimed
Caliph Baghdadi lording it over their territory, or even stirring up supporters
within their borders.

Turkey would have its own,
additional, reasons for participating, for President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is already reported to be preparing
to send a force of perhaps 18,000 troops intoSyria.
It would have twin objectives: to
establish a buffer zone on the Syrian side of the border to accommodate
refugees on Syrian rather than Turkish soil (Turkey has accepted some two
million since the start of the Syrian civil war), and to prevent the emergence
of aKurdish state on Turkey’s doorstep by blocking
the two current zones of Kurdish control from joining up. “We will never allow
the establishment of a state in Syria’s north and our south,” said Erdogan
recently.

Turkey is not alone in actively considering
armed intervention against IS. Jordan – another member of Salman’s anti-Houthi coalition – is also reported to be drawing up
plans to establish a safe zone in southern Syria, following
concerns that IS could take over territory close to its border if President Assad's forces were to withdraw from the city of Deraa. The mood music is
changing.The accepted Western view – that putting Western boots on the ground of Iraq or Syria
would be seen as “an army of occupation”– is being challenged on all
sides.The time for indecisiveness is
over.If the world is to be freed from
the madness of IS, the time for positive action is now.Published in the Jerusalem Post on-line, 1 July 2015:http://www.jpost.com/Experts/This-Islamic-State-madness-has-gone-on-long-enough-407672Published in the MPC Journal, 1 July 2015:http://mpc-journal.org/blog/2015/07/01/islamic-state-madness-gone-long-enough/Published in the Eurasia Review, 3 July 2015:http://www.eurasiareview.com/03072015-this-islamic-state-madness-has-gone-on-long-enough-oped/

Follow by Email

About Me

I have been commenting on the Middle East scene for over thirty years. I am Middle East correspondent for the on-line journal Eurasia Review, and my articles also appear regularly in the Jerusalem Post, the MPC Journal and elsewhere. Born in London, I was educated at Owen's School and am a graduate of St Edmund Hall, Oxford. A veteran radio and audio dramatist and abridger, I am a past chairman of the Society of Authors’ Broadcasting Committee and the Contributors’ Committee of the Audiobook Publishing Association. In the Queen’s Birthday Honours in 2006 I was awarded the MBE for services to broadcasting and drama. My latest book is “The Chaos in the Middle East, 2014-2016”. My other books include “One Man’s Israel”, “One Year in the History of Israel and Palestine” and “The Search for Détente: 2012-2014”.
For a fuller, more personal history, please see the “Biography” page on my website at: www.nevilleteller.co.uk